So i've seen this pic a lot. Real? If so, what're the chances that fendercushions the boat if it topples because the person decided to move around....😂
Bottom of that bulb must be broader and flatter than it looks.

It varies from state to state. In Texas, you can record a conversation if one side gives permission. So I could record any conversation I am on. However, if the person is in another state, that state may have a serious issue with it.

MA is "consent of both parties" state unless it's in a public space where there is no expectation of privacy but even then it's open to wide interpretations.

Perhaps asking the salver to use a bullhorn will counteract any expectations of privacy.

vjm-Florida can write any law they please. However, the Federal Communications Act gave the FCC the sole and exclusive power to regulate all radio transmitters in the US. And the FCC says that a "cell phone" is a radio transceiver, not a telephone. Therefore the Florida laws apply only to wired telephones (coincidentally, the FCC says a telephone is always a wired thing) and any law which contradicts the FCC's rulings, which expressly allow any party to make recordings of radio transmissions, is null and void.
Yeah, Florida and Mass and a few other places can get upset. TFB, that's progress. Concepts like "wiretap" are, by federal definition, limited to wired networks. If you want to record a cell phone call, go ahead. The FCC gives you their blessings, and has Congress behind them.

Which leaves a really curious question: Exactly who is removing the recording ability from Android phones? And, why are the carriers and makers both so fast to say it wasn't them, it was the other guy?

(There's never a tinfoil hat around when you need one.)

"Some (more daring) sailors do use wadpoten ..."
In English, "grounding legs". Not a new concept, but most of us are scared to try it.(G)

vjm-
Florida can write any law they please. However, the Federal Communications Act gave the FCC the sole and exclusive power to regulate all radio transmitters in the US. And the FCC says that a "cell phone" is a radio transceiver, not a telephone. Therefore the Florida laws apply only to wired telephones (coincidentally, the FCC says a telephone is always a wired thing) and any law which contradicts the FCC's rulings, which expressly allow any party to make recordings of radio transmissions, is null and void.
Yeah, Florida and Mass and a few other places can get upset. TFB, that's progress. Concepts like "wiretap" are, by federal definition, limited to wired networks. If you want to record a cell phone call, go ahead. The FCC gives you their blessings, and has Congress behind them.

Which leaves a really curious question: Exactly who is removing the recording ability from Android phones? And, why are the carriers and makers both so fast to say it wasn't them, it was the other guy?

(There's never a tinfoil hat around when you need one.)

"Some (more daring) sailors do use wadpoten ..."
In English, "grounding legs". Not a new concept, but most of us are scared to try it.(G)

Missing something, yes. If Florida passed a law saying "Only white landowners over the age of 21 can vote" it still wouldn't be legal, because *federal* law sets voting rights, and any state law attempting to touch those rights is null and void.

This isn't the first time states have contradicted the fed, or vice versa. "States' Rights" remains an active issue on all sorts of ways. CT used to say that radar detectors were illegal, until someone took that to the Supreme Court (in the 70s? 80s?) and the USSC said "That's a radio receiver, only the FCC can regulate the use of them" at which point CT didn't immediately change their law--but they did immediately drop all proceedings that were still active, i.e. tickets for it. Somehow, VA still calls them illegal, I've never found out why VA continues to get away with it.

Call your insurance company, or gas company, in Florida. They'll tell you "this call may be monitored or recorded for (whatever)". You think they'll turn off the recording if you ask them to? Regardless of what laws anyone thinks regulate it?

Same argument. As to who has the legal authority to regulate herbs...I don't see that given to the Fed in the Constitution, so it might just be "reserved to the states".

As to how pot became a dangerous Reefer Madness Addictive Drug Menace...Well, even in the 70's the Yippees came up with an interesting suggestion. Banning drugs increases "drug crime" and stimulates the economy as more people are robbed by mad drug users. And keeps the victims too busy working to replace their goods, to spend any time in other troublesome things, like protesting or attending political rallies. Just because every (every) Presidential and Congressional committee charged with looking at legalizing pot has said "Yeah, you ought to legalize it, that's the only way to control it, didn't you folks ever hear how Prohibition came out?" doesn't seem to have changed any Federal minds. One might suggest there's too much moneybuying too many votes the wrong way.
Considering the way states are legalizing pot (and meanwhile, the federally regulated banks won't open bank accounts for the businesses selling and growing it) it would be REAL interesting to see 50 states legalize pot, and the Fed still try to pretend there's any logic or gain in criminalizing it.
"Rasmus, that'd better be cotton y'alls growing down there." "Yessir, massah."